Laserfiche WebLink
increase in maximum allowable production has a number of implications in terms of <br />environmental impacts and conditions of approval, among them: <br />• The increase in production is far above what has been considered by the U.S. Fish <br />and Wildlife Service in assessments of impacts to threatened and endangered fish and <br />wildlife listed under the Endangered Species Act. In conjunction with the 2006 and <br />2007 Mining Plan approvals, the Service assumed water depletions in the San Juan <br />River Basin of 8.61 acre-feet, presumably based on production of 600,000 tons <br />annually. Based on this, the Service accepted OSMRE's assertion that endangered <br />fish and their critical habitat in the San Juan River Basin would be sufficiently <br />protected. GCC now reports the company utilizes 2.4 to 3.4 acre-feet per month, or <br />28.8 to 40.8 acre-feet per year, in conjunction with its increased production. See <br />Exhibit 7, Memorandum from Carrie Lile, Harris Water Engineering, Inc., to Brian <br />Kimmel, "GCC Energy Water Use: Current and Future" (Aug. 12, 2015). GCC is <br />even moving to build a new reservoir to ensure access to increased water supplies. <br />The impacts of this nearly five -fold increase in water use have not been properly <br />addressed by OSMRE either under NEPA or pursuant to the Endangered Species <br />Act.3' a This raises justifiable concerns that the conditions of approval for the 2007 <br />Mining Plan modification fail to ensure mining does not jeopardize the continued <br />existence of listed species or adversely modify their critical habitats. See 16 U.S.C. § <br />1536(a)(2). <br />• The increase in production means more environmental impacts related to the hauling <br />of coal by truck from the mine. In the BLM's 2001 EA, it was estimated that 18-28 <br />trucks per day would be used to haul coal on the Hay Gulch Road, which is the main <br />road from the mine to Colorado Highway 140. EA at 11. Yet due to the production <br />increase, a report by La Plata County indicates truck trips have increased to nearly <br />100 per day. See Exhibit 8, La Plata County Planning Commission, "Department <br />Report, GCC Energy King II Coal Mine" (2015) at 5. Furthermore, reports indicate <br />as many as 288 trucks per day may be hauling coal on the Hay Gulch Road, leading <br />to a massive increase in air and water quality impacts, noise impacts, and impacts to <br />La Plata County road infrastructure. See Exhibit 9, Romero, J., "King Coal Mine <br />Seeks County's OK," Durango Herald (Sept. 22, 2015). These impacts have not <br />been addressed by OSMRE under NEPA and therefore fail to demonstrate that the <br />increase in production does not require an environmental impact statement or that <br />conditions of approval should not be modified. <br />3 The NEPA analysis prepared by the BLM in 2001, which is the only NEPA analysis ever prepared for mining at <br />King II, does not even mention water depletions in the San Juan River Basin as a potential impact. <br />4 To the extent the State of Colorado may have discussed production increases at the King II mine with the U.S. Fish <br />and Wildlife Service, the State has no authority to implement or oversee compliance with the Endangered Species <br />Act. In fact, when it comes to permitting the mining of federal coal, OSMRE has clearly prohibited Colorado from <br />implementing the Endangered Species Act pursuant to a state -federal cooperative agreement. See 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 906.30, Article VI § 8. <br />